I would have taken AMASPZAP as hyperbole, did I not know better. And, yes, that's the right quote,
Performance? Does the resource consumption of IPCS come anywhere near the overhead of scanning SYSUDUMP for data? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 2:10 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: 64-bit application dump analysis [was: RE: Problems with ESTAEX invoked in AMODE 64 . . . ] On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 17:54:58 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >ObSchiller IPCS is part of z/OS. All dangerous facilities of IPCS are >controlled by SAF. If your management capriciously prohibits you from using >it, the responsibility is theirs. It's certainly their prerogative to ban, >e.g., IEFBR14, but no outside company is obligated to rescue them from the >consequences of their decision. > >Not all companies take essential tools away from their application developers. > I take your mention of IEFBR14 as hyperbole. But I have heard of sincere admin objections to application programmers' use of AMASPZAP, ADRDSSU, and CMS DDR. Is there perhaps not a security but a performance concern with IPCS? Schiller? "gegen Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens"? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
